3 ms·

You're perfectly within your rights to trust law enforcement as much as you'd like, believe that any investigative power they're given won't be abused, and that

by rosser 11y ago

You're perfectly within your rights to trust law enforcement as much as you'd like, believe that any investigative power they're given won't be abused, and that this isn't a cynically calculated grab for exactly that purpose. I don't.

lern_too_spel 11y ago
This isn't a grab for power — this is a power that they already have. They went through the courts to get the proper order, following the letter of the law. We give the government the power to open bank safes, seize property, and wiretap; but we make laws that allow them to do so only when it's in society's best interests. If you don't think the law serves society's best interests, it's up to you as a citizen that your government represents to help change it. In this case, I think you'll find that a majority of people will say it is in society's best interests to open the San Bernardino shooters' bank safes, obtain their phone records, and decrypt their phone in order to look for accomplices.
- rosser 11y ago
  FISA warrants and NSLs are "following the letter of the law", too. You don't think they're subject to egregious abuse? As for what the "majority of people" find reasonable, all I have to do is look at the polling numbers in the current presidential race to find myself in abject disgust at what the "majority of people" appear to think. They seem not to give half a shit what happens to anyone else, as long as they can watch the next episode of American Idol without fear of "getting blowed up by terr'ists" — despite the fact that more people have won the lottery than have died from terrorism in the US since September 11th. EDIT: Anyway, there's nothing new or informative to be found in this discussion. We disagree. Let's leave it at that.
  - iofj 11y ago
    This is a court case. What is under this discussion is not what is reasonable, but what is the law and how it applies to this case. That seems to come down to whether or not is is considered an "undue burden" on Apple to break security on this device, and that's it. If you want the law to change, I would hope that the court sides with the FBI, as that will provide far more ammunition to anyone wanting to change the law than ruling in favor of Apple.
    - wfo 11y ago
      This is a discussion. Most of the people here are not lawyers. In discussions we generally discuss right and wrong and what is reasonable, which have nothing to do with the law. The law is an ancillary technical concern about what the FBI or Apple will be forced/allowed to do, and has nothing to do with what they should do.
    - narrowrail 11y ago
      The only law I've seen proposed would force Apple to comply with the FBI request. Given that, perhaps the law doesn't currently mandate what you think it does?

by rosser 11y ago

lern_too_spel 11y ago

This isn't a grab for power — this is a power that they already have. They went through the courts to get the proper order, following the letter of the law. We give the government the power to open bank safes, seize property, and wiretap; but we make laws that allow them to do so only when it's in society's best interests. If you don't think the law serves society's best interests, it's up to you as a citizen that your government represents to help change it. In this case, I think you'll find that a majority of people will say it is in society's best interests to open the San Bernardino shooters' bank safes, obtain their phone records, and decrypt their phone in order to look for accomplices.

rosser 11y ago
FISA warrants and NSLs are "following the letter of the law", too. You don't think they're subject to egregious abuse? As for what the "majority of people" find reasonable, all I have to do is look at the polling numbers in the current presidential race to find myself in abject disgust at what the "majority of people" appear to think. They seem not to give half a shit what happens to anyone else, as long as they can watch the next episode of American Idol without fear of "getting blowed up by terr'ists" — despite the fact that more people have won the lottery than have died from terrorism in the US since September 11th. EDIT: Anyway, there's nothing new or informative to be found in this discussion. We disagree. Let's leave it at that.
- iofj 11y ago
  This is a court case. What is under this discussion is not what is reasonable, but what is the law and how it applies to this case. That seems to come down to whether or not is is considered an "undue burden" on Apple to break security on this device, and that's it. If you want the law to change, I would hope that the court sides with the FBI, as that will provide far more ammunition to anyone wanting to change the law than ruling in favor of Apple.
  - wfo 11y ago
    This is a discussion. Most of the people here are not lawyers. In discussions we generally discuss right and wrong and what is reasonable, which have nothing to do with the law. The law is an ancillary technical concern about what the FBI or Apple will be forced/allowed to do, and has nothing to do with what they should do.
  - narrowrail 11y ago
    The only law I've seen proposed would force Apple to comply with the FBI request. Given that, perhaps the law doesn't currently mandate what you think it does?